Master in Aerospace Engineering

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>Your advice will be greatly appreciated. </p>

<p>I have been admitted to an aerospace engineering graduate program. I am NOT a mechanical or aerospace undergraduate student. I would like to know, preferably from mechanical/aerospace students and current mechanical/aerospace engineers, what should I focus on as a aerospace engineering graduate student. By that I mean, which classes should I take and what knowledge am I expected when I graduate. Please think as though you are a hiring engineer/manager at an aerospace company.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

2

<p>That depends entirely on what area of research you intend to pursue. There are three main areas: aerodynamics, materials/structures, and dynamics/controls. You have to decide which of those areas you prefer before you can start asking questions like this. Honestly, though, this is a question that would be perfect for your graduate advisor, not us. The biggest thing outside of specific courses is you just need to pick up the skill in the lab to be an effective researcher.</p>

3

<p>bonehead, in your opinion, does it heavily matter if the undergrad research experience gained is in an area within aero that you don’t want to focus on? I realize it helps to be in the same concentration, but will grad school admissions care if for instance you did undergrad research in controls but wanted to focus your grad school on fluids?</p>

4

<p>FWIW, my undergrad research was primarily heat transfer and my grad research is boundary layer transition, so it doesn’t matter that much. It helps some if they are similar but more important is just having experience in the lab that a pofessor can attest to in a LoR.</p>

5

<p>My undergrad was in General Engineering and my graduate was <non-existent>.
In the past 8 months I’ve worked on everything from large steel structure design to experimental techniques for rapid internal flow characterization inside a large rocket engine to injector processing/testing to flight gimbal design. Talk about a hodgepodge of stuff!</non-existent></p>

<p>Most every other new hire has been asked to do things outside his/her field of speciality… many have MS or PhDs.</p>

<p>Basically in my company, you should have a strong footing to be able work a vast array of problems. You should be able to do FEM even if you are a fluids person. CFD is a good bonus. You should have an intuitive sense for Isp and rockets in general. You should know what is a good Isp for particular propellants and rough temperatures and O/F ratios.</p>

<p>Basically, it doesn’t matter what you specialize in as long as you have a good grounding. At least that is my take.</p>

<p>…and please (again), let’s NOT talk about where I work. Thanks!</p>

6

<p>rocketDA, I thought that this went against the the whole spiel about engineers all having different little jobs to do. It seems like a system like that would save money for the employer, but might be a bit of a gamble. I haven’t taken any college engineering courses, but isn’t there a reason most employers hire a lot of engineers to take care of things that they’re ‘experts’ in? I suppose if a company is willing to take that gamble, they make sure to hire the best engineers.</p>

<p>Sorry if that seemed a bit of a ramble, I’m mostly thinking aloud here. I’m just confused about how your place works this out (also sorry to talk about your work specifically, I meant it as a more general question rather than specific to your workplace).</p>

7

<p>Hadsed,</p>

<p>You’re actually really spot on in your comments. </p>

<p>The work that RocketDA is doing (and what his coworkers are doing) has a much higher level of risk because RocketDA doesn’t have and can’t possibly gain experience in all of these areas. Engineers typically gain experience in one or two speciality areas and then do similiar work over and over again because they are good at it. The wide breadth of what RocketDA is doing means that he doesn’t have a lot of experience in successfully doing that type of work in the past, which increases the technical risk that something might be missed or overlooked. </p>

<p>Experience is very important in engineering and that’s why you often have people specialize in areas of expertise.</p>

8

<p>It’s more important that you show an interest in research for a graduate application than it be in the exact same field. I mean, it won’t hurt if its in the same field, but if you want to switch don’t fret. I started working in materials and quickly learn that I hate materials and want nothing to do with them. Most of my undergrad research was in materials but I’m currently doing fluids at the graduate level.</p>

<p>I’d have to side with bigtrees and hadsed on that one. The jack-of-all-trades engineer doesn’t really exist anymore and to say that is the case at a highly specialized level like rocketDA is talking about seems ludicrous to me.</p>

9

<p>rocketDA is an exception because he works at a very small company that asks most of its employees to that jack-of-all-trades engineer. It is not common anymore, but in rocket’s situation, it as absolutely the case. They are super selective and only take the people that show promise in being able to juggle all of those skills and learn them and use them successfully. I would venture a guess that, while it is certainly uncommon, rocketDA is most likely at least mostly proficient in all of those areas after learning the finer points of them on the job.</p>

10

<p>it’s funny how rocketDA knew people were going to talk about where he works…lol</p>

<p>what’s your undergrad in strengr? I’m confused, wouldn’t you need an undergrad in ME or Aero E for grad school…I mean I’m scared **** to take advanced coursework in Heat Transfer and Fluids and I’ve taken the undergrad coursework…unless your a chem E??</p>

11

<p>“I would venture a guess that, while it is certainly uncommon, rocketDA is most likely at least mostly proficient in all of those areas after learning the finer points of them on the job.”</p>

<p>:P Making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I don’t know if I am quite proficient in the majority of fields yet, but it is my goal to be able to do whatever is asked of me… and to be able to conceptualize the whole system. Yup, there is a ton to learn!</p>

<p>I think people tend to box themselves into a particular area of engineering…when, in fact, there is so much commonality between everything. When you start to understand this “kernel” of the physical world (as it applies to modern engineering), the boundaries between disciplines dissolve.</p>

<p>About my company: It is okay to talk about it generally speaking. I mean, what kinds of people work there and the general field that we work. We are very tight-lipped about our technical and program plans so I won’t venture there. I will, for the sake of educating people about what it takes to get into a company like mine, discuss my personal opinion about engineering. However, I am in no position to be making any statements on behalf of the company.</p>

<p>We do have a mixture of generalists and specialists. Some people have been working on engines for 30+ years and personally contain a sizable chunk of the knowledge in the field. Others are damn good at figuring out problems and resorting to physics and math to solve problems. Others are highly trained in very specialized computation tools and perform lots of that work. However, no one is boxed into a single operation at my company. Even the specialized people get to branch out (almost by necessity) as there is so much stuff to do that everyone must go outside his/her comfort zone.</p>

<p>In terms of errors being made: Sure, there will sometimes be errors. The key is catching them and fixing them before they become a real problem. We are very careful to streamline our operation without cutting corners. Drawings are still reviewed and released. Designs still go through fully reviewed design cycles with numerous people (with different experiences) involved. An engineer at my company is also expect to be “hands-on” and a “builder”. This means you own your hardware from concept through detailed design, fabrication, cleaning, inspection, assembly, and all that. Engineers spend probably 70% of their time in the engineering (office) workspace and 30% of their time in the lab or highbay. </p>

<p>The only other “company” that I’ve worked at was JPL… and that was for 2 summers and part-time during the school year. Development at JPL felt like a snail’s pace…and there was so much red tape that it was hard to get anything done.</p>

12

<p>“I mean I’m scared **** to take advanced coursework in Heat Transfer and Fluids and I’ve taken the undergrad coursework”</p>

<p>It is all the same stuff. Some process is rate limited by the gradient. Sure, you can mix it up and do the problems in cylindrical coordinates or throw some convective heat transfer (thermal boundary layer) in there. I mean, I am by no means a heat transfer expert but I know enough to get by. Also, I can pick up a graduate level text and after a few hours understand some specific stuff.</p>

<p>My favorite thing about heat/mass transfer is erf. Everything is erf.</p>

<p>P.S. Did any of you who were involved in the “your mom” jokes involving bachelors and masters degrees get CC infraction notices? I got a 1 point infraction for making a your mom joke on here. Haha!</p>

13

<p>I must not have been involved in those set of jokes but I was involved in a different set of “your mom” jokes and didn’t get any sort of notice. Lucky you.</p>

<p>cyclone10, I think strengr is a civil engineering major. I seem to remember a previous thread with him asking if a civil can do aero grad school. They absolutely can. My research group has plenty of aerospace and mechanical undergrads, but we also have a chemical engineering undergrad and a physics undergrad, and those two are both very competent. Chemical engineering has less to do with aero for the most part than civil does.</p>

<p>I second what rocketDA says about heat transfer. You just have to know gradients and know how to look up shape factors in a chart, and that is about it, at least for conduction, which was the most difficult of the three types at the undergrad and basic grad level. It is also very similar to viscous flow since viscous dissipation is essentially momentum diffusion.</p>

<p>And the erf and erfc are probably the second or third most annoying functions in my book. I suppose Bessel functions and Airy functions are the most obnoxious ones to me that I use(d) on a semi-regular basis.</p>

14

<p>You are absolutely right, I am a civil/structural engineering student. I am trying to break into the aerospace field. I really appreciate all your comments. I have a decent background in structural, I did afterall recieved a MSCE in structural. However, as a civil/structural student, I lack fluid/aerodynamics and heat transfer/thermal background. I hope to make that up as a aerospace grad student. </p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

15

<p>If you could, perhaps you could tell me. Would it better to dwell into the fluid/aerodynamic part first and then take the heat transfer courses. For example, here is a list of grad courses I am considering but havent taken (this is a complilation of courses offered in both the mechanical and aerospace department, which are seperate departments at my university): Thermodynamics, Head Conduction and Radiation, Conductive Heat Transfer, Convective Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, Fluid Turbulence, Compressible Fluid Mechanics, Vortex-Dominated Flows, Aerodynamics of Viscous Fluids, Computational Fluid Dynamics. </p>

<p>Compressible Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Mechanics, though different classes in different departments I expect is the same in term of material subject. Likewise, I expect Fluid Turbulence and Vortex-Dominated Flows to be the same. What is your opinion? Thanks again.</p>

16

<p>Compressible Fluid Mechanics is a graduate level course…prereq’s for those classes (advanced Fluids and HT classes CFD ) will be one course Heat & Mass Transfer and another in Fluid Mechanics. </p>

<p>If your on the structures side of things than it seems these wouldn’t be necessary though?</p>

17

<p>Take basic thermodynamics (if you haven’t already), then basic fluids, then heat transfer. Thermo is the underlying science of both of them along with straight mechanics and taking fluids first will help with heat transfer when you get to the convection part.</p>

<p>Contrary to what cyclone said, compressible flow is always a required undergrad course in aerospace engineering as far a I know. There is also usually a more in depth version in graduate school.</p>

18

<p>“Compressible Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Mechanics, though different classes in different departments I expect is the same in term of material subject. Likewise, I expect Fluid Turbulence and Vortex-Dominated Flows to be the same. What is your opinion? Thanks again.”</p>

<p>Different… at least with my schooling. We took fluid mechanics first, which was focused on DE’s from a continuum mechanics perspective. Navier-Stokes and basic continuity ruled all… in PDE form.</p>

<p>In compressible, we didn’t touch any viscous flow topic. We focused on thermodynamics of high speed flows… Isentropic 1D, Quasi-1D, 2D (MOC); Rayleigh Flow (constant area heating); Fanno Flow (constant area friction); Shocks (normal, weak, strong, reflections); PM expansion. Not covered: Reacting/shifting flows; plasmas; hypersonic flow; more advanced numerical methods.</p>

19

<p>bonehad, yea I forgot we were talking Aero E, I was speaking in reference to my own major</p>

20

<p>I second what rocketDA said here. Fluid mechanics and compressible fluid mechanics are very different courses. They do both cover fluids though. Turbulence and vortex-dominated flows are also very different, even though there would be some overlap since vortices have a fairly important role in turbulence, but the two subjects are not the same.</p>